in the village of Staunton, did better than Low- 

 bands, which was an isolated colony. But even 

 those few to whom this type of holding would 

 have been a benefit were handicapped by the high 

 rent, which was out of all proportion to the rent of 

 neighbouring agricultural land. This was partly 

 due to the absurd prices which were paid for the 

 land and the buildings. Each 4-acre plot, with its 

 little one-storied house, cost about 472, against the 

 280 at Minster Lovell and the 320 at Dodford ; 

 that is to say, there was an exceptionally high 

 initial cost in an especially low -rented district. 

 Five per cent, on 472 would have made the rent 

 of a 4-acre holding 23 11s., which was of course 

 from the start found to be an impossible figure. 

 But even under these conditions we find instances 

 of men to whom the scheme has in the long run 

 been a benefit, and who have been successful. A 

 certain number have got together enough of the 

 allotments to make a holding of adequate size for 

 their respective needs, and many have done well 

 who were not altogether dependent on the land. 

 These instances serve to show what may be 

 expected of a scheme carried out on wiser lines, 

 just as much as the failures are a warning against 

 trying to establish conditions foreign to a district. 



The undertaking at Dodford can be looked upon 

 as a marked success in the long run, after allowing 

 for the natural failures due to the first ridiculous 

 idea that townsmen ignorant of cultivation could 

 make a living on 4 acres by purely agricultural 



